INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
PECHNER

U.S. | 1877-10-01
95 U.S. 183 Supreme Court of the United States (1877) Caution
Also reported at: 24 L. Ed. 427 · 1877 U.S. LEXIS 2150 · SCDB 1877-045
Cited by 23 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

An insurance company sought removal of a state court case to federal court under the Judicial Act of 1789, claiming the opposing party was a citizen of another state, but the removal petition failed to affirmatively establish the plaintiff's citizenship at the time the suit was commenced. The Supreme Court held that removal is a statutory right requiring the defendant to clearly demonstrate on the record that the case qualifies for removal, and that a petition stating only the plaintiff's current citizenship without establishing citizenship at the suit's commencement is insufficient to divest the state court of jurisdiction.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

The application for removal in this case was made under sect. 12 of the Judi.ciaiy Act of 1789. 1 Stat. 79. That section, so far as it is. important fot the determination of this case, reads as follows: —

“If a suit be commenced in any State court ... by a citizen óf the State in which the suit is brought against a citizen of another State, . . . and the defendant shall, at the time of entering his appearance in such State court, file a petition for the removal of the cause for trial into the next Circuit Court, ... it shall then-be the duty of the State court to . . . proceed no further in the cause.”

Clearly this'has reference to.the citizenship of the parties when the suit is begun; for the ^language is, “ If a suit be commenced by a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought against a citizen of another State, the defendant may, when he enters his appearance, petition for its removal.” The phraseology employed in the acts of 1866, 14 Stat. 307, 1867, id. 558, and 1875, 18 id. 470, and in the Revised Statutes, sect. 639, is somewhat different, and we are not now called upon to give a construction to the language there used. As to the act of 1789, we entertain no doubt in this particular. This right of removal is statutory.' Before a party can avail himself of it, he inust show upon the record that his is a case which comes within the-provisions of the statute. His petition for rem^al, when.filed, becomes a part of the record in the cause. It should state facts,- which, taken in connection with such as already appear', entitle him to the .transfer. If he fails in this, he. has not, in law, shown to the court that it cannot “ proceed further with the cause.” ’Having once acquired jurisdiction, the court iuay proceed unuil it is judicially informed that its power over the cause has been suspended.

It remains only to apply this rule to the facts as they appear in this record. The suit was commenced June 1, 1867. At that time there was nothing in the pleadings or process to-indicate the citizenship of the .plaintiff. The defendant, in its petition for removal, bearing' date June. 11, simply stated that the plaintiff is — ’that -is to say, was at that date — a.citizen of New York.- This certainly, is not stating affirmatively that such was his citizenship when the suit was commenced. The court had the right to take the case as made by the party himself, and not-inquire further. If that was not sufficient to oust the-jurisdiction, there was no reason why the court might not proceed with the cause. We think, therefore, that the Court of Appeals did not err in its decision.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010)
    ….S. 199, 202, 6 Otto 199, 24 L.Ed. 656 (1877), that it “becomes a part of the record,” and that “[i]t should state facts, which, taken in connection with such as already appear, entitle [the petitioner] to the transfer,” Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Pechner, 95 U.S. 183, 185-86, 24 L.Ed. 427 (1877). Those Supreme Court decisions are inconsistent with the Lowery opinion’s assertion that “the demand of the plaintiff’ must provide the source of facts on the value of unliquidated claims even where the defendant is th…
  • Gold-Washing & Water Co. v. Keyes, 96 U.S. 199 (U.S. 1877)
    …sential facts, not otherwise appearing in the case, which the law has made conditions precedent to the change of jurisdiction. If it fails in this, it is defective in substance, and must be treated accordingly. Thus, in Insurance Company v. Pechner (95 U. S. 183), we decided that a petition for removal, oh account of the citizenship of the parties, did not divest the State court of its power to proceed; because, when taken in connection with the pleadings and process in the cause, it failed to show such cit…
  • Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Sheegog, 215 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1909)

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw